This is getting serious now

This hopeless Morrison government fucked up the Covid 19 economic rescue (money to companies without asking if they are in trouble, big money to job seeker which encouraged employers to sack employees and then big money to job keeper but too late (employees already sacked) and job keeper is paid in arrears so cashflow makes it unworkable), is unnecessarily fucking up our relationship with China and wants to fuck up our future rights by allowing Peter Dutton to set up a Home Office Stasi.

They do not understand business, they do not understand foreign relations and they have no regard for democracy.

And if that wasn’t bad enough …

And my right wing friends are lurching even further right

In 6 months It’s going to get even more serious

By Robert Gottlebsen in The Australian. Yes The Australian.

There is a 6 month time bomb ticking

The sharemarket, the banks and many solvent smaller enterprises are suddenly getting very jittery that in less than six months time there will be an unprecedented rise in the failure rate among small and medium sized enterprises.

Real unemployment – ABS unemployment statistics are useless – is going through the roof and is close to 20 per cent, triggered by a catastrophic slump in the small and medium sized business sector led by hospitality, retail and tertiary education services.

Liquidations, receiverships and official administrations have risen strongly, but at nowhere near the rate that could have been expected following such a big fall in economic activity.

Liquidators who operate in this area are warning anyone who will listen that there are a vast number of enterprises that are really insolvent but are still trading.

Normally the provisions of the Companies Act that make directors of a company personally liable if they trade while insolvent causes companies to face the crisis very quickly.

But as part of the COVID-19 measures, the government passed legislation that gives directors six months of temporary relief from personal liability for trading while insolvent.

The legislation states that the relief only covers the debts incurred in the ordinary course of a company’s business. But that definition is broad, so many businesses are continuing to trade even though they have a little chance of coming out solvent in six months’ time.

‘There are a vast number of enterprises that are really insolvent but are still trading.’

The government’s plan, back at the end of March, was that enterprises would be put in virtual hibernation while COVID-19 was controlled and then would snap back to life when the restrictions were eased.

Accordingly, JobKeeper and many other measures finish at the end of September.

Although it is possible some measures might be extended further in a reduced form, in October enterprises must start resume paying their employees. Around the same time, directors are returned to being personally liable for debts incurred when there is a reasonable belief that the company is insolvent.

Some enterprises will have been able to use the moratorium to survive and will snap back. But many others are already insolvent – virtually zombie companies – and so will throw in the towel.

As the number of failing companies spikes it will spark a volley of new failures from companies that are currently solvent but will bite the dust because they will not be able to collect money from the current zombie companies that were allowed to keep trading. In some cases, owners may have used the current insolvency liability relief and the broad definition of what constitutes “the ordinary course” of trading to extract money from the enterprise. .

Many owners believe it is worth a punt that a miracle may happen because staff are being paid by JobKeeper. And sometimes a miracle will happen, but very often it will not.

Bank customers have deferred payments on loans totalling a staggering $160bn including 13 per cent of small business loans.

Two of the greatest risks facing the nation are a secondary rise in COVID-19 infections and a mass failure of smaller enterprises when the insolvency quarantine period ends.

A great many smart enterprises are simply not delivering goods or services without cash upfront or on delivery.

But as the months roll-on those precautions will start to fade and when the six months is up, liquidators will move in on their customers and a great many currently solvent enterprises will go to the wall.

In a Nutshell

When it comes to dealing with the Chinese government, there is a big difference between sensible caution and needless provocation. Australia must choose wisely.

This government (and it seems most Australians) do not understand business or power.

Goaded by the Americans we spent some goodwill capital to suggest China should be investigated by the international community (think about it, will China grant access, without access will anything meaningful be discovered and think about 100 years of embarrassment). This was a hopeless endevour. We spent goodwill capital for no reason. Remember Hawke and Keating? Hawke gathered capital so Keating could spend it. Sometimes you make a stand but only when you can. Eg ban flights from China or ban Huawei from supplying our 5G.

Now China is saying – Hmm, that wasn’t nice … we need to teach you a lesson.

In business you do not unnecessarily piss off your best customer. If there is a problem, you communicate with respect and stand your ground when you really have to and when you can.

If you don’t have power, you don’t threaten.

If your good or service is easily obtained elsewhere, you do not have power.

If you can’t easily sell your product elsewhere, you do not have power.

You don’t burn goodwill unless you really have to. This is especially the case when your relationship is more than just supplier/customer.

The inquiry has morphed

It started with how coronavirus started in China but is now morphing into an investigation led by the WHO to examine the Worldwide response

World Health Organisation investigators would be given the same powers as weapons inspectors to forcibly enter a country under an Australian government plan to avoid a repeat of the COVID-19 global pandemic.

The move to overhaul the world health body comes as Australia will on Thursday call for an international review of wildlife markets, which the government says pose a “big risk” to human health and food production.

The new powers, which Prime Minister Scott Morrison raised with world leaders in recent days, would drastically alter the operation of the WHO by giving it the power to go into a country to investigate a disease outbreak without the express consent of the nation’s government.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has defended China’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak and will support a “comprehensive review” led by the World Health Organization into the global response after the virus is brought under control.

Mr Xi did not indicate whether China would vote for a joint resolution by Australia and other countries calling for an independent inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.

Now Littleproud is crowing about our effort to get International agreement as if we are the leaders

Where is the whinging over fighter jets?

What does a deputy sheriff do without a sheriff? Australia has spent the last three-quarters of a century as America’s uniquely loyal ally. Again and again, Australia signed up for US wars that other American allies refused to join. The Brits were too smart to join the American war in Vietnam. Canada was too wise to touch the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. And Wellington was so wary of US nuclear weapons that it, in effect, took the “NZ” out of ANZUS.

But Canberra sent troops into even the dumbest American wars in the belief that it was paying an insurance premium against the day when Australia needed US help.

Now that Australia finds itself facing its most precarious geopolitical situation since World War II, the insurance policy is looking pretty threadbare. Donald Trump has shown that he is happy to ignore, insult and injure American allies whenever the mood takes him.

On Friday it was through the F-35 fighter jet program that Australia, among other allies, has relied on. Trump called it “crazy”. Australia decided to join the US in supporting the F-35 program more than a decade ago under the Howard government, when it was just an idea. It was then known as the Joint Strike Fighter project.

Part of the deal was that if US allies committed to buying some of these high-tech planes, Washington would give them a share of the manufacturing work to make them. Eight American allies signed up. Canberra agreed to buy 72 jets as part of a $17 billion program. In return, some 50 Australian companies employing about 2400 people are now making components for the jets. The work is worth $1.3 billion.

Until Donald Trump decided to threaten the whole deal in an interview on Friday: “The problem is, if we have a problem with a country, you can’t make the jet. We get parts from all over the place. It’s so crazy. We should make everything in the US.” Fewer than half the jets so far have been delivered to Australia.

Scott Morrison’s response? Hoping that it’s just electioneering bluster from Trump, the Australian leader said he’d “wait to see” what happens. But whatever happens with the F-35s, the episode is another reminder of how unreliable the US has become. Deputy sheriff Australia now uneasily fingers the six-shooter in its holster, wondering what the mad sheriff has in mind for the future weapon and ammo supply.

US gets its way with EU beef quota

From Qld Country Life 11 June 2019

The European Commission (executive arm of EU) has struck a deal to allocate a specific share of its 45,000t high-quality grain-fed beef quota to the United States.

After all, what has been agreed to will effectively end the access that Australia (and other countries) have enjoyed to the EU for high-quality grain-fed beef since 2009. Where was the outrage? With friends like these, who needs enemies?

As it now stands it seems the US will initially receive a country-specific allocation of 18,500t which will progressively rise to 35,000t over seven years.

Those disillusioned with the outcome might argue that Australia should have taken the high moral road and opposed the deal on the grounds that it discriminated against Australia in favour of the US and thus was in breach of WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules.

Whether that would result in a better outcome is a moot point considering the long and protracted nature of a WTO dispute and in the end the extent of any willingness on Australia’s part to impose retaliatory tariffs on the EU.

*** Given Australia is currently trying to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU, the latter course of action would seem to not have a lot going for it. (IE sometimes it is better not to fold)

Also to fully appreciate just where the moral ground actually lies, it may be useful to revisit coverage of this issue provided in this column in October last year.

I explained then that the genesis of the quota dates back to 1988 when Europe banned imports of meat from animals treated with hormonal growth promotants.

This largely affected the US.

The dispute over the matter between Europe and the US simmered for years before the US eventually retaliated with WTO-compliant import tariffs on certain European products.

Another lengthy period elapsed before a compromise was reached and a memorandum of understanding (MoU) struck between Brussels and Washington which resulted in the EU opening its market in 2009 to the sizeable quota of HGP-free grain-fed beef.

…

It followed therefore that when the US applied more pressure last year in the form of President Donald Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs and the prospect of tariffs on European motor vehicles, the EU had no hesitation in seeing their way clear to granting the agricultural favour the US sought. Gosh Superpowers exercising … power!

Secretary general of the European Livestock and Meat Trades Union Jean-Luc Mériaux said at the time that Australia, Argentina, Uruguay and New Zealand had increased their share of the quota at the expense of the US and now they would either have to accept a lower level of trade or lose it altogether.

That Australia ultimately agreed with this sentiment is now apparent but there may also be an element of trade reality that influenced the outcome.

But that isn’t the point. China’s main concern isn’t barley, and it isn’t the dumping of Australian products. It’s Australia’s use of anti-dumping against China.

What is dumping?

Dumping is essentially price discrimination, in which a producer sells a product to an export market at a lower price than it sells it at home.

As such, it is often condemned as “unfair trade practice” which accords exporters a competitive advantage over producers of similar goods in the market of importation.

While the question of whether dumping is “unfair” or a legitimate commercial practice remains highly controversial, anti-dumping actions are permitted under the rules of the World Trade Organisation and are used frequently by many nations, including Australia.

In an anti-dumping action, the designated authority investigates whether there is dumping, whether the relevant domestic industry has suffered a “material injury”, and if so, whether the injury was caused by the dumped imports.

A “yes” answer to all three leads to the imposition of anti-dumping measures, which are typically customs duties on the goods involved.

What’s really worrying China

Australia’s use of anti-dumping action has been on the rise over the past decade.

Most of the actions, and most of the eventual anti-dumping measures, have been aimed at China.

While China’s steel industry has been the main target, many other Chinese industries have also been targeted; including aluminium products, clear float glass, stainless steel sinks, road wheels, solar panels or modules, A4 copy paper, and railway wheels.

However, what’s been annoying China more has been Australia’s treatment of it as a non-market economy in anti-dumping investigations.

The designation flies in the face of a commitment Australia made as long ago as 2005 to treat China as a market economy as a precondition for the negotiation of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

It means that the costs and prices actually charged in China aren’t used to determine whether or not it has been dumping. Instead, prices and costs in a third country are used to work out what is meant to be normal.

As I warned in a previous article, if the practice continues it could drag Australia into a trade dispute that would harm the interests of Australian industries.

China is embracing anti-dumping

While not being a traditional user of anti-dumping measures, China has been a fast learner.

Including the barley investigation, China has taken 276 anti-dumping actions since the introduction of its anti-dumping law in 1997 – somewhat less than the 326 cases initiated by Australia.

Until now, in contrast with Australia’s frequent anti-dumping actions against China, China has never initiated action against Australia.

This might be because it needs Australia’s exports and needs them cheaply.

But China is becoming a sophisticated player in the global trading system and is gaining experience using anti-dumping measures for the purpose of retaliation.

So far, the main targets have been the United States and the European Union. Often, it has imposed anti-dumping duties that exceed 100%.

It isn’t in Australia’s interest to join the club.

Barley is far from a random choice

Barley is not a random choice. To push Australia to abandon its attachment to anti-dumping measures, China has strategically targeted one of Australia’s major exports.

Barley producers and exporters are spread across many Australian states, and they had been relying on the recently signed China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which eliminated Chinese tariffs.

As of July 31, 2015, 70 barley exporters were registered with China’s import inspection and quarantine authority.

But China has many other suppliers from which to choose. It can restrict imports of high-quality Australian barley while continuing to import high-quality barley from elsewhere.

It promises years of turmoil

China’s investigation might take a year. However, it is able to impose preliminary duties after 60 days.

After any final determination to impose anti-dumping duties, these measures are likely to remain in place for five years, with the possibility of an extension for a further five years.

Only ten Australian barley producers and exporters are identified in the application lodged by the China Chamber of International Commerce, but it would be wise for the others to cooperate with the investigation.

Uncooperative exporters will face significantly higher duties.

Australia can challenge the barley investigation in the WTO, but the rules suggest it can only do so after China’s ministry of commerce has made a final decision.

And the challenge might take years, during which time the anti-dumping duties would stay in place and China had become used to sourcing barley from elsewhere.

Unless China relents

Another possibility is that China might terminate the investigation or any duties imposed for other reasons.

Earlier this year, China decided not to include Australia in an anti-dumping investigation into grain sorghum imports after bilateral consultations.

But if Australia continues to launch repeated anti-dumping investigations against China and continues to classify China as a non-market economy, in breach of its earlier commitments, the action against barley growers is unlikely to go away in a hurry.

Letters to The Courier Mail

IT SEEMS grossly unfair that Chinese trade tensions appear to be pressuring the Australian Government over its support for an investigation into the COVID-19 pandemic.

Any organisation, if it experiences a shock to its normal operations, seeks to understand what happened, how and why by having an investigation , with subsequent recommendations to manage future events. This is Business Management 101. No, business management 101 is don’t unnecessarily piss off your best customer.

If the Chinese Government is so resistant, then one might draw conclusions of what an inquiry might find.

One solution that would resolve diplomatic issues with various countries calling for an inquiry, is if the investigation was sanctioned and led by the United Nations.

Their charter calls for the UN “to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character” , so surely this is just such an instance.

If the UN carries out an inquiry, then no individual country can be held to blame for inciting it and the findings would be independent.

Graham Morgan, Townsville

IT’S time our government started playing hardball due to China’s suspension of beef exports and the possibility of an 80 per cent tariff on Australian barley.

Firstly, terminate the 99-year lease on Darwin Harbour and all water lease agreements they have purchased.

Secondly, restrict them from buying more properties due to the down turn in property prices and the exchange rate of the Australian dollar, due to COVID-19 .

Thirdly, if they want our coal and iron ore then make them pay the price we set, not what they demand.

Finally, expel the Chinese ambassador and close all Chinese embassies in Australia.

It might sound harsh but we have to refuse to be bullied and fight for the COVID-19 investigation.

Mick Barker, Stafford

WITH China restricting Australia’s exports such as beef, it is possibly the commencement of a retaliatory trade war as promised should Australia continue a push to discover the real source of the coronavirus.

It is time for Australia to hold its ground against a relentless bully.

Should Australia suspend ownership of all Chinese holdings within Australia with the view to nationalising them I am sure we will grab China’s attention.

Lyn Fryer, Ferny Hills

CHINA has started its boycott by suspending meat imports from Australia in retaliation to Scott Morrison asking for a worldwide supported investigation into the origin of the COVID-19 virus.

His request was to protect the world’s population against future pandemics, not for power or spite.

Over the years, China has bought many Australian farms and exports this food directly to China.

The Australian Government immediately should bring in a law that forbids export of any food from these farms and if things progress, outlaw ownership of any farms/properties in Australia by China.

Ownership should be reciprocal and we cannot own property in China, so they should not be able to buy or lease property or ports in Australia .

Glenda Heaven, Cleveland

THIS is an opportunity for the Australian Government and industry to restart our manufacturing.

If China wants to impose tariffs then all imports from China will have an import duty applied to them substantial enough to make our manufacturing industry viable.

This would create employment. The tariffs applied to Chinese imports could be directed to helping primary producers as they will suffer because their produce cant be stored for very long.

So let’s get cracking and get Australia back to being independent and self reliant.

In the current situation China is attempting to force Australia to drop its push for a COVID-19 inquiry by blocking meat from Australian abattoirs .

China still needs beef and will source it from another country.

In a tit for tat world their new supplier should put a significant premium on their beef price but it won’t happen and China will win the game.

Bill McCormack, Tarragindi

Donald Maclean gets it

IT IS not surprising that China has taken umbrage to the Morrison Gov- ernment’s demand for an international inquiry into the origin and management of the COVID-19 pandemic (C-M , May 13).

Yes, it is important for the world to understand better how and where the SARS-CoV 2 virus moved into human populations and the way it spread.

Such an investigation can only succeed if done in co-operation with the Chinese authorities because it happened in China.

However, the Morrison Government’s language pointedly ignores the need for Chinese co-operation , and plays into the anti-China blame game of US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly shown little appetite for veracity in his clumsy handling of the pandemic.

By appearing to be deputy sheriff to the US, Australia is about to be punished by trade sanctions.

Surely now is the time for the Australian Government to acknowledge the need for Chinese co-operation in any international inquiry or research program into COVID-19 .

Donald Maclean, Fig Tree Pocket

Anti-China Bias from SBS

How is it that commentators on China get away with outlandish statements that don’t pass the most minimum scrutiny?

Take for example Dr Clive Hamilton’s statement commenting on tensions with China and broadcast on SBS TV on May 5 that: “The United States is not going to unilaterally undertake some sort of military action, but Beijing may well do that.”

Why the SBS editorial team did not throw this statement into the dustbin as the mumbling of an ignorant buffoon, beggars belief.

Clive apparently has forgotten that it was the United States that invaded Iraq, based on a lie and in total disregard of the United Nations? He is apparently unaware of the US airstrikes on Syria in April 2018, again with no international approval and based on what has now been exposed as false claims of a Syrian Government sarin attack.

Since the end of the Cold War in 1991 the United States has used its armed forces abroad 160 times, according to the US Congressional Research Service. Had Clive forgotten Afghanistan and equally importantly Vietnam where lies like those he now peddles that China threatened South East Asia, cost over a million lives?

… Before calling again on Clive to comment on China, SBS should ensure that he takes a course in modern history at a recognised university.

Free Speech – Ethical Stuff

The harm principle says people should be free to act however they wish unless their actions cause harm to somebody else.

The principle is a central tenet of the political philosophy known as liberalism and was first proposed by English philosopher John Stuart Mill.

The harm principle is not designed to guide the actions of individuals but to restrict the scope of criminal law and government restrictions of personal liberty.

For Mill – and the many politicians, philosophers and legal theorists who have agreed with him – social disapproval or dislike for a person’s actions isn’t enough to justify intervention by government unless they actually harm someone.

The phrase “your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” captures the general sentiment of the principle. The approach is usually linked to the idea of ‘negative rights’, which are demands someone does not do something to you.

The sticking point comes in trying to define what counts as harmful.

A more difficult category concerns harmful speech. For Mill, you do not have the right to incite violence – this is obviously harmful as it physically hurts and injures. However, he says you do have the right to offend other people – having your feelings hurt doesn’t count as harm.

In this case, Lord Atkin formulated the general principle known as “Neighbourhood Principle”. Lord Atkin held that:

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be — persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as long as so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question. ”

Consumer laws – we won’t wait till someone gets hurt and let them sue we will step in and stop faulty goods from being sold- also – can’t make false claims about a product

A “healing church” that promoted a solution containing industrial bleach as a cure for coronavirus has been fined more than $150,000 by the TGA for multiple allegedly unlawful advertising offences.

Strangely you can’t purport to be a “Medical Practitioner” (thanks Deep Throat) but non-doctor can give medical advice.

Trade Practices Act covers misleading and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce (goods but not advice) Noahs Ark Plimer V Roberts TPA covers how it is sold not the contents

Professor Plimer is a Professor of Geology and the Head of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He is a member of an organisation known as the Australian Skeptics, which has provided him with some financial support in respect of the proceedings in this Court. Dr Roberts is an ordained Christian Minister whose career includes a period as the principal of a Bible College in Sydney. He was the founding principal of the Australian College of Christian Education. He described himself in an affidavit before the trial Judge as “an historical researcher in archaeological work as it relates to the boat- shaped formation in Turkey… which I believe may be Noah’s Ark.” Dr Roberts’ academic qualifications lie in the field of education. His doctorate was attained at a Christian University in the United States, in the field of Christian education.

The trial Judge explained the origin of the present dispute in the following terms:

“Professor Plimer claims to have been affronted by what he says were misleading or deceptive statements made in the course of public lectures given by Dr Roberts throughout Australia in April and May 1992. Professor Plimer also complains about statements made or authorised by Dr Roberts in certain publications and in video and audio tapes of the lectures. The lectures and publications of which Professor Plimer complains advance the hypothesis that a boat-shaped geological formation at a place known as Akyayla, near Mt Ararat in Eastern Turkey (to which I refer as the Site [ as do I]), is or could contain the remnants of Noah’s Ark, thereby providing tangible evidence of the literal truth of the account of the great flood in Genesis, 6:13 — 8:19. It is important to appreciate that Professor Plimer’s case, as presented on his behalf, is not directed to establishing the invalidity of the hypothesis put forward by Dr Roberts. Rather, Professor Plimer relies on what he says is the falsity of particular statements made by Dr Roberts in the lectures and in the publications.”

Free Speech, vaccinations, footballers

David Icke

From Podnews

Spotify has removed a COVID-19 podcast featuring an interview with conspiracy theorist and idiot David Icke, after he tried to claim that 5G was to blame for the coronavirus, which it isn’t, and then says he doubts the virus exists anyway, which it does. CNBC reports that Apple Podcasts has yet to remove the episode, however. Icke also believes that we’re ruled by shape-shifting reptilians, and that the universe is made from vibrational energy

OK to curate provided you don’t have a monopoly

Bryce Cartwright

Employment is different to free speech.

Is it an essential feature of his employment?

From The Courier Mail

… But if Cartwright, or any player, shows flu-like symptoms , the entire team and staff must go into quarantine to rule out coronavirus , leaving many people who rely on that team for employment out of work again, and without a $600,000 salary to fall back on.

In yet another of her social media tantrums, Shanelle raged against her husband’s teammates for not standing up for him, posting: “Where the real men at!? ”

Wayne Bennett

Queensland bans NRL players who refuse flu jab on non-medical grounds

Interstate NRL players who have refused a flu shot for ethical or religious reasons will not be allowed to play in Queensland.

In a setback for the NRL before its May 28 restart, Queensland’s Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young said on Tuesday players would only receive vaccination exemptions on medical grounds.

The Queensland government’s “no jab, no play” stance is bad news for Gold Coast duo Bryce Cartwright and Brian Kelly, who were stood down after rejecting the jab.

And it is a blow for NRL players outside Queensland who have questioned the need for a vaccination, including Manly duo Dylan Walker and Addin Fonua-Blake, Canterbury rake Sione Katoa plus Canberra trio Josh Papalii, Sia Soliola and Joseph Tapine. It is believed a total of about 20 players have signed a waiver to avoid a flu jab for various reasons.

But Young said she had told the NRL it would provide exemptions only for players who have had adverse reactions to vaccinations.

Under the NRL rules, which the players are contracted to abide by, it also states: “That a player must make every effort to be and remain fit to play the game, and is and will be able to perform his obligations under the agreement, without exposing himself to greater than usual risk to injury.”

Insurance and liability lawyer Lucinda Lyons said the NRL could be at risk if a vaccination directive was not outlined in either its policies or the players’ contracts with the club.

Employment lawyer Kamal Farouque said players could lawfully be stood down even without a provision in their contract, so long as the directive from the NRL and clubs was considered reasonable.

“In the current environment, the ground would be shifting towards an assessment that the requirement is lawful and reasonable,” he said.

An employer can’t be expected to cover every eventuality in a contract so should be able to request compliance with conditions that are reasonable in the circumstances – considering the nature of the game and the nature of the employment

Is it essential to their performance of their job? Ordinarily no, but maybe yes if Government now says so (but Government shouldn’t have said so actually maybe it makes sense because flu like symptoms must be treated with suspicion)

This is different to speculation of a Coronavirus vaccine and Novak Djokovic

Samoa

Samoa has said nearly 90% of eligible people have been vaccinated against measles as it lifted a two-day curfew imposed amid an outbreak that has killed 65 in recent weeks.

There were, however, 103 new cases of measles reported since Friday, Samoa’s health ministry said in a statement on Saturday.

The measles virus has infected almost 4,500 people in the South Pacific nation of 200,000 since late October. Of those who died, 57 were under the age of four.

Samoa has, meanwhile, arrested an anti-vaccination campaigner amid the outbreak. Edwin Tamasese was charged with incitement against a government order after he was detained on Thursday.

The outbreak is in part blamed on people spreading false information, claiming vaccinations are dangerous.

Samoa has declared a state of emergency and made vaccinations compulsory.

The mandatory immunisation campaign aims to vaccinate 90% of the population, tripling Samoa’s coverage in just a few weeks. The government said a rate of 89% had been achieved as of Friday.

Measles cases are rising worldwide, even in wealthy nations such as Germany and the US, as parents shun immunisation for philosophical or religious reasons, or fears – debunked by doctors – that such vaccines could cause autism.

Samoa and the United Nations appealed on Friday to the international community for about $10.7m to battle and recover from the crisis.

“The impacts of this emergency will be far reaching on Samoa and our people, particularly our young generations,” the prime minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, said in a statement. “It is imperative therefore to strengthen the culture of acceptance of vaccination in order to create ‘herd immunity’. This is a painful lesson we have learnt from the current crisis.”

Covid – Economy Vs Lives

Based on international and Australian research a credible estimate of the value of statistical life is $4.2m and the value of statistical life year is $182 000 in 2014 dollars. There are complicating assumptions used to derive these estimates so a sensitivity analysis should be undertaken as part of the cost-benefit analysis.